FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 2

Two killed in firefighting helicopter crash near Richfield, Utah

KUTV and Pajhwok report a pilot and a crew member died when a Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane crashed on August 7 while working the Widemouth 2 Fire; the FAA and NTSB are investigating.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 9, 2026, 10:08 p.m. ET
people — a pilot and a crew member — were killed when a firefighting helicopter crashed near , Utah, on Friday, August 7, 2026, according to reporting by KUTV and Pajhwok. Accounts of the time differ: KUTV reported the crash occurred at , while Pajhwok placed it on without a specific time. The story is still developing and details remain incomplete. Both outlets reported the aircraft was a . Pajhwok reported it was operated by under a contract with the US Forest Service to assist with the Widemouth Fire. The aircraft involved has not been identified; registry records list four aircraft under , which is not an identification of the helicopter in this crash. According to the reporting, the crash ignited a brush fire, and wildfire intensity and difficult terrain delayed the county search and rescue crew from reaching the wreckage. The bodies were recovered later the same day. Firefighting operations were temporarily suspended after the crash and then resumed. Widemouth Fire officials said there was no confirmation of the status of the victims. The Widemouth wildfire began on July 27 after lightning sparked a fire in the Fishlake National Forest, the outlets reported, and had burned more than 111,000 acres in central Utah and was 24 percent contained. Utah Governor Spencer Cox described wildfire fighting as one of the world's most dangerous jobs. KUTV reported that the crash is under investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board. The cause has not been determined.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Reference data

From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.

Terrain elevation
846 ft
Nearest aerodrome
3.2 miles W of Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport / Wold–Chamberlain Field (KMSP/MSP)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 210 Aug 2026, 02:08current

    Added KUTV reporting: FAA and NTSB investigating, the ~10:40 a.m. time (noted as conflicting with Pajhwok's 'Friday morning'), the brush fire ignited by the crash, fire officials' statement on victim status; corrected operator fleet count to four.

  2. Version 110 Aug 2026, 00:08

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.